Professor Who Called Kirk a ‘Nazi’ Gets Huge Win

In a case that’s reigniting the free speech wars under President Donald Trump’s second term, a South Dakota professor has won a temporary reprieve after a judge blocked his firing for controversial comments about the late conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier, a Clinton appointee, ruled Wednesday that the University of South Dakota cannot move forward with its plans to terminate tenured art professor Phillip Michael Hook. Schreier emphasized that “the public has a compelling interest in protecting its First Amendment rights,” signaling that constitutional protections outweigh political outrage—for now.

The ruling reinstates Hook to his position retroactively to September 12, just days after he was suspended, and will remain in effect until an October 8 preliminary injunction hearing in Sioux Falls.

The controversy began on September 10, hours after Kirk, 31, was fatally shot during a Q&A session at Utah Valley University. On his private Facebook account, Hook posted:

“Okay. I don’t give a flying f*** about this Kirk person. Apparently he was a hate spreading Nazi… I’m sorry for his family that he was a hate spreading Nazi and got killed. I’m sure they deserved better. Maybe good people could now enter their lives. But geez, where was all this concern when the politicians in Minnesota were shot? And the school shootings? And Capitol Police? I have no thoughts or prayers for this hate spreading Nazi. A shrug, maybe.”

After backlash, Hook followed up with a second post apologizing:

“Apparently my frustration with the sudden onslaught of coverage concerning a guy shot today led to a post I now regret posting… I extend this public apology to those who were offended. Om Shanti.”

Despite the apology, the university’s dean of the College of Fine Arts, Bruce Kelley, moved to fire Hook, arguing he violated campus policy.

The case immediately drew national attention. Conservative figures framed Hook’s comments as evidence of liberal “indoctrination” in higher education, while free speech advocates saw the university’s response as a dangerous precedent.

South Dakota’s Republican governor Larry Rhoden took to X earlier this month, declaring:

“When I read this post, I was shaking mad… We must not send the message to our kids that this is acceptable public discourse. We need more Charlie Kirks on campus and less hatred like this.”

Progressive activists, however, countered that the incident highlights how quickly universities bend to political pressure in the Trump era. “This is about silencing dissent,” one petition organizer wrote. “If professors can’t speak their minds off the clock, then the First Amendment is meaningless.”

Charlie Kirk, a close Trump ally and founder of Turning Point USA, was a polarizing figure long before his violent death. He built his reputation by rallying young conservatives against what he called “radical leftist indoctrination” on college campuses. Critics, however, accused him of pushing bigotry and misinformation under the guise of patriotism.

Hook’s lawsuit—arguing “unconstitutional retaliation in violation of the First Amendment”—is part of a broader national clash over whether educators can be disciplined for their private speech. Legal experts say this ruling could influence future cases, particularly as universities face mounting pressure from conservative officials emboldened by Trump’s return to power.

The October 8 hearing will determine whether Hook keeps his job for good or faces renewed termination efforts. Meanwhile, petitions to defend Hook and other professors targeted for political speech continue to circulate online, underscoring how deeply these cultural battles have seeped into America’s classrooms.

“This isn’t just about one professor,” said a South Dakota student who signed one of the petitions. “It’s about whether we’re allowed to have any real freedom of thought in Trump’s America.”